Re: [CBQ] CB&Q engines leased to SP

["qutlx1@aol.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Tim,

I would like to address your comment that " thanks to union rules based on mileage there was no incentive to run trains any faster".  Based on my 42 years in the industry as both a union T&E employee,union steward and a manager tasked with improving operations and reducing costs; then with suppliers and contractor to the carriers. 

There is no one more frustrated with a slow moving train than the crew; which is paid in miles to get from A to B . The crew makes the same amount of money to get from A to B whether it takes 4 or 8 hours,and depending on miles for the run they may not make a dime more in 12 hours.

When I was on the extra board the faster I got done the quicker I got posted back on the board for another run to make more money. Sitting on a parked through train waiting to get into a yard cost me money. When I was on a regular job or pool turn the sooner I got over the road,the sooner I got home.

Management powers trains based on the cost to run the train,revenue derived and demands of the customer. That's why there are high speed container trains and low speed unit trains.

One of my first learning incidents in mgmt occurred when my boss told me " we are running rolling warehouses". It's not a matter of speed but rather just getting the goods where they're needed in a scheduled manner. 

The industry tried going to an hourly basis during the promulgated rules (in the 60s) during a lengthy contract renewal. from what I was told that didn't go well for either side.

Leo Phillipp

On Feb 16, 2015, at 9:57 PM, Tim O'Connor timboconnor@comcast.net [CBQ] <CBQ@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Without radios, triple heading was probably the easiest. But a locomotive on
the point, in the middle, and at the rear -- on a steep mountain grade -- Now
that must have been pretty exciting! No doubt there were special whistle calls
involved too.

Reduction of the number of engine crews was a HUGE reason for the elimination
of steam power. Diesels actually cost more to buy and operate but they allowed
railroads to lay off lots of crews and shop workers and run fewer, longer trains
and that more than made up for the higher ownership costs. Thanks to union rules
based on mileage there was no incentive to run trains any faster. Average freight
train speed today is only 1 or 2 mph faster than it was 100 years ago.

Tim O'Connor

>Just slightly off topic, but I wonder, how hard was it to MU steam engines? As "easy" as today, or more demanding?
>
>Bill Scott

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: qutlx1@aol.com

---

Visit Your Group

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___